This page shows what was measured, who it was measured in, and what that does not settle.
What Aclidinium does in the body
The maintenance treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
From the FDA-approved label: Aclidinium bromide is a long-acting antimuscarinic agent, which is often referred to as an anticholinergic. It has similar affinity to the subtypes of muscarinic receptors M 1 to M 5 . In the airways, it exhibits pharmacological effects through inhibition of M 3 receptor at the smooth muscle leading to bronchodilation. The competitive and reversible nature of antagonism was shown with human and animal origin receptors and isolated organ preparations. In preclinical in vitro as well as in vivo studies, prevention of acetylcholine-induced bronchoconstriction effects was dose-dependent and lasted longer than 24 hours. The clinical relevance of these findings is unknown.
What happened in people
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
§ A fixed RNAWiki sentence
Where this came from
Wording RNAWiki always uses, not a finding about this substance.
No reviewed claim names a result for any goal on this record.
No source is stored against this line.
The limit that matters most
Not recorded.
Where it acts
Not recorded.
Kind of result
No result is published, so no kind of result applies yet
Supervision
RNAWiki has not recorded a supervision or regulatory status for this substance.
What the registries record it as
The substance registry classes this as chemical.
FDA substance registry · K17VY42F6C · read 2026-08-29
Its recorded molecular formula is C26H30NO4S2Br.
US prescribing information · 6f92cceb-a63f-4470-99b6-56179d98f10f · read 2026-08-30
Where each sentence above came from
No recorded sentence describes the change this makes in a way that stands on its own. The page opens with what it is taken for instead, and the recorded explanation follows below.
Shown as the opening line on this page.
No statement of the main limit is recorded.
The four opening statements run to 127 words.
Words this page uses
Four words worth knowing first
Chosen from what this page shows, with each one explained before the word it depends on.
Biomarker
A biomarker is a number from a test that stands in for something about health.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
A biomarker is like a fuel gauge.
Where that stops being true. A gauge is wired to the tank. Many biomarkers are only loosely tied to health.
What people get wrong. A better number is read as a better life. Several medicines improved a number and helped nobody.
A measurable indicator used as a substitute for a clinical outcome of interest.
Placebo
A placebo is a dummy treatment given so the real one can be compared with it.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
A placebo is like a blank control in an experiment.
Where that stops being true. A blank does nothing. People given a placebo often do get better.
What people get wrong. A placebo effect is read as imaginary. The improvement is measured and real.
An inactive intervention matched in appearance to the test intervention, used to control for non-specific effects.
Comparator
A comparator is whatever the treatment was measured against.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like the other runner in a race.
Where that stops being true. A race has one winner. A study can show both arms improved.
What people get wrong. Results are read without asking what the other group got. Beating nothing is not beating a treatment.
The control condition against which the experimental intervention is assessed.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What happened in people
Each card is one study: the exact question it asked, who was in it, and whether it showed what it set out to show.
Rate of Moderate or Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Exacerbations Per Subject Per Year During the First Year of Treatment
✗ The study did not show it
Who was studied
NCT01966107
How many people
3635
Study design
Phase 4
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
Result not recorded on this page
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. A study that did not show an effect does not show that no effect exists anywhere.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. No limitation is recorded for this study.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Inhalation
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
openFDA Drugs@FDA · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
openFDA NDC Directory · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
openFDA SPL label · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
PubChem PUG-REST · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
Change From Baseline in 1-hour Morning Post-dose Forced Expiratory Volume in One Second (FEV1)
✗ The study did not show it
Who was studied
NCT01462942
How many people
2443
Study design
Phase 3
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
Result not recorded on this page
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. A study that did not show an effect does not show that no effect exists anywhere.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. No limitation is recorded for this study.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Inhalation
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
openFDA Drugs@FDA · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
openFDA NDC Directory · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
openFDA SPL label · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
PubChem PUG-REST · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
Change From Baseline in 1-hour Morning Post-dose Forced Expiratory Volume in One Second (FEV1)
✗ The study did not show it
Who was studied
NCT01437397
How many people
1692
Study design
Phase 3
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
Result not recorded on this page
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. A study that did not show an effect does not show that no effect exists anywhere.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. No limitation is recorded for this study.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Inhalation
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
openFDA Drugs@FDA · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
openFDA NDC Directory · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
openFDA SPL label · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
PubChem PUG-REST · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
Change From Baseline in 1-hour Morning Post Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 Second (FEV1)
✗ The study did not show it
Who was studied
NCT03022097
How many people
1625
Study design
Phase 3
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
Result not recorded on this page
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. A study that did not show an effect does not show that no effect exists anywhere.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. No limitation is recorded for this study.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Inhalation
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
openFDA Drugs@FDA · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
openFDA NDC Directory · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
openFDA SPL label · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
PubChem PUG-REST · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
Change From Baseline in 1-hour Morning Post-dose Dose Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 Second (FEV1) of AB/FF 400/12 μg Compared to AB 400 μg at Week 24
✗ The study did not show it
Who was studied
NCT02796677
How many people
1595
Study design
Phase 3
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
Result not recorded on this page
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. A study that did not show an effect does not show that no effect exists anywhere.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. No limitation is recorded for this study.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Inhalation
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
openFDA Drugs@FDA · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
openFDA NDC Directory · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
openFDA SPL label · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
PubChem PUG-REST · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
Percentage of Participants Prematurely Discontinuing Study Treatment Due to Any Reason
✗ The study did not show it
Who was studied
NCT02165826
How many people
1323
Study design
Phase 3
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
Result not recorded on this page
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. A study that did not show an effect does not show that no effect exists anywhere.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. No limitation is recorded for this study.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Inhalation
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
openFDA Drugs@FDA · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
openFDA NDC Directory · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
openFDA SPL label · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
PubChem PUG-REST · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
What we know
RNAWiki holds 6 written-up human studies for this substance, each with the question it asked.
How we know it
Each card names the study, the number of people and what the study set out to measure.
What this does not prove
These summaries were written by a person and have not been signed off as reviewed claims.
Why it matters
A study that failed is as informative as one that worked, and both are here.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim exists, so no exact population, effect size or interval is published yet.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Were people like you studied?
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it, and where the result stops carrying.
Who was studied
People similar to this profile were included.
TUDORZA® PRESSAIR® (aclidinium bromide inhalation powder) is indicated for the maintenance treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). TUDORZA PRESSAIR is an anticholinergic indicated for the maintenance treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). (1)
Who is missing from the studies
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
What the label states about particular groups
On pediatric, the label states: “The safety and effectiveness of TUDORZA PRESSAIR in pediatric patients have not been established.”
US prescribing information · 6f92cceb-a63f-4470-99b6-56179d98f10f · read 2026-08-30
On older people, the label states: “Of the 636 COPD patients exposed to TUDORZA PRESSAIR 400 mcg twice daily for up to 24 weeks in three placebo-controlled clinical trials, 197 were less than 60 years, 272 were greater than or equal to 60 to less than 70 years, and 167 were greater than or equal to 70 years of age.”
US prescribing information · 6f92cceb-a63f-4470-99b6-56179d98f10f · read 2026-08-30
On people who are pregnant, the label states: “Risk Summary There are no adequate and well controlled studies of TUDORZA PRESSAIR in pregnant women to inform drug associated risks.”
US prescribing information · 6f92cceb-a63f-4470-99b6-56179d98f10f · read 2026-08-30
On people who are breastfeeding, the label states: “Risk Summary There are no available data on the effects of TUDORZA PRESSAIR or aclidinium bromide on the breastfed child or on milk production or presence in human milk.”
US prescribing information · 6f92cceb-a63f-4470-99b6-56179d98f10f · read 2026-08-30
On people with reduced liver function, the label states: “The effects of hepatic impairment on the pharmacokinetics of TUDORZA PRESSAIR were not studied [see Clinical Pharmacology (12.3) ] .”
US prescribing information · 6f92cceb-a63f-4470-99b6-56179d98f10f · read 2026-08-30
On people with reduced kidney function, the label states: “The pharmacokinetics of TUDORZA PRESSAIR were investigated in subjects with normal renal function and in subjects with mild, moderate, and severe renal impairment [see Clinical Pharmacology (12.3) ] .”
US prescribing information · 6f92cceb-a63f-4470-99b6-56179d98f10f · read 2026-08-30
Where the result stopped carrying
This is a scope explorer, not a diagnosis engine.
It shows who was studied so you can see whether people similar to you were included.
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Why it might seem to do nothing
A real effect and a noticed effect are different things. These are the recorded reasons the two come apart.
It was studied in different people
The people in the studies were not much like the reader.
On this record: Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
The evidence may simply be wrong
Small early studies often do not hold up.
On this record: RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Other reasons RNAWiki checked and found nothing for (11)
It was studied for a different goal
The studies measured something else entirely. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
A different form was studied
The studied form is not the form on the shelf. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
There was nothing to correct
Where a level is already normal, topping it up may change nothing. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else had to happen too
In the studies it was paired with training, a diet or another treatment. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The change is too small to feel
A real change can still sit below what a person notices. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Day-to-day swing hides it
Sleep, food, stress and time of day move most numbers more than this would. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Not enough time yet
The studies ran longer than the person has waited. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
It was not taken as studied
Missed days change the result, and studies count them. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else changed at the same time
Two changes at once cannot be told apart afterwards. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The product may not be what it says
Contents of a sold product are not always what the label states. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
No recorded reason
RNAWiki has nothing stored that would explain it. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
None of these is a reason to take more. Taking more is not a step this page ever suggests.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What taking it involves
The recorded facts about getting hold of it and using it. Nothing here is a suggestion about what you should do.
How it is supplied
Prescription only
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
Read from the recorded approval status.
No source is stored against this line.
Form and route
Inhalation
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form and route recorded on this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
Who oversees it
RNAWiki has not recorded a supervision or regulatory status for this substance.
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
No register row and no identity class settled the question.
No source is stored against this line.
What is in the pack
Sold as powder, metered, given by the inhalation, respiratory (inhalation) route.
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
Recorded notes on how this is sold and what that means for what is in the pack.
No source is stored against this line.
Where it is registered
Regulatory records are listed in the technical disclosure at the foot of this page.
# Counted from records
Where this came from
A count of rows RNAWiki holds. It describes our records, not your body.
Register entries are stored per jurisdiction and shown with their dates.
No source is stored against this line.
Why people stop
Not recorded.
∅ Nothing recorded
Where this came from
RNAWiki holds nothing here and says so rather than guessing.
No record of why people stopped taking it is stored for this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
What it would be like to take∅Nothing found in the sources checked
What can go wrong
Sorted by where each line came from. A regulator's label and a report somebody sent in are not the same kind of fact.
∅Nothing found in the sources checked
No harm is recorded against this substance in the sources RNAWiki checked. Finding nothing is not the same as showing there is nothing.
The sources listed were searched and held nothing. That is not the same as nothing existing.
Over a long time. No completed tested study window is recorded, so long-term effects are not established by the registry record.
Groups the studies covered thinly. Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Does the exact form matter?
Evidence belongs to the exact thing that was tested. A different salt, a different mixture or a different preparation is a different question.
The form that was studied
Inhalation
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form used in the studies cited on this page.
No source is stored against this line.
What is sold
Not recorded.
∅ Nothing recorded
Where this came from
RNAWiki holds nothing here and says so rather than guessing.
Nothing further is recorded about which forms are sold.
No source is stored against this line.
What is recorded as being sold
Tudorza Pressair is respiratory (inhalation) at 3 DOSAGE FORMS AND STRENGTHS Inhalation Powder., recorded as fda label in effect 2022-08-01 in the United States.
US prescribing information · 6f92cceb-a63f-4470-99b6-56179d98f10f · read 2026-08-30
Evidence carries across two names for one substance. It does not carry across a salt, a mirror form or a mixture.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What you could measure
This one is decided with a clinician, so this section holds questions to ask rather than a plan to run.
RNAWiki could not confidently classify this substance, so no self-experiment plan is offered.
Questions worth asking
Which of the trials of Aclidinium studied people like me?
What was measured, and for how long?
Was the result a laboratory value or a health outcome?
What would we watch for, and when would we stop?
Tracking can show whether something changed for you. It cannot show what caused it.
RNAWiki records evidence. It does not say whether this substance is right for you.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What nobody knows yet
Open questions, each with why it is open and what would close it.
Missing populations
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing long-term data
No completed tested study window is recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
No reviewed conclusion
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing interaction studies
No interaction was found in the registers checked. Not finding one is not the same as showing there is none.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Formulation uncertainty
Several salts, forms or products of Aclidinium are recorded. Results from one form may not transfer to another.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Mechanism not reviewed
No reviewed mechanism story exists for this substance.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Check any of this yourself
Every line above traced back to the study it came from. This is the technical layer, and the vocabulary changes here.
Where else this substance is registered
FDA substance identifier (UNII)
K17VY42F6C
CAS registry number
727649-81-2
PubChem compound
11434515
RxNorm concept
1303098
EMA substance identifier
100000135703
DrugBank
DB08897
Checks this page had to pass
✓ Passed
Identity resolved
no open identity hold
✓ Passed
No unresolved merge across substance families
no quarantine open
✓ Passed
Every public sentence names a source
The opening statement carries the origin: Written into the record, not signed off.
✗ Not passed
Trial roles classified for highlighted evidence
No registered study is classified as testing this substance.
✓ Passed
No internal keys in reader text
enforced by the copy-contract test over the rendered page
✗ Not passed
Safety mode resolved
No register row and no identity class settled the question.
✓ Passed
Canonical metadata present
slug and display name present
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What to learn next
Ordered by what would most change how you read this page, starting with what is easiest to misunderstand.
This order is fixed in code and does not count clicks or time on the page.
What is not here
10 questions this page could not answer
These sections were prepared and left out because there was nothing to put in them. They are listed rather than hidden, so the gaps in this record are visible.
What was measured, goal by goal — found nothing in the sources checked.
How close this is to real life — found nothing in the sources checked.
The path through the body — found nothing in the sources checked.
Felt, measured, or meaningful — found nothing in the sources checked.
How long anything takes — found nothing in the sources checked.
What it may clash with — found nothing in the sources checked.
Other ways to the same goal — found nothing in the sources checked.
Claims that go past the evidence — found nothing in the sources checked.
How this medicine reached us — found nothing in the sources checked.
What changed on this page — found nothing in the sources checked.
The record as stored
The full record, for auditing
Everything above is built from what is below. This layer keeps the technical vocabulary, record identifiers and every stored row, so a reader who wants to check the page can.
Recorded evidence blocks (9)
Q1
On the Aclidinium label: indicated for what?
"TUDORZA® PRESSAIR® (aclidinium bromide inhalation powder) is indicated for the maintenance treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). TUDORZA PRESSAIR is an anticholinergic indicated for the maintenance treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).": indications and usage on Aclidinium's label. DailyMed label · 6f92cceb-a63f-4470-99b6-56179d98f10f · 2022-08-01
Q2
33 registered trials of Aclidinium — at which phases?
"Study stopped early as AZ have re-prioritised to focus on research to help bring existing and innovative medicines to more patients with asthma and COPD."; 3 of 33 registered studies
Show the evidence
Trial
NCT03181880
withdrawn; "Study stopped early as AZ have re-prioritised to focus on research to help bring existing and innovative medicines to more patients with asthma and COPD."
NCT03662711
terminated; "Contract terminated between AIFA and the Sponsor (University of Ferrara)"
NCT06282861
terminated; "Delays in the opening and activation of participating sites, and a low recruitment rate, with only 48 participants enrolled over the course of one year"
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q4
Human studies of Aclidinium used Aclidinium Bromide 200 µg — over how long?
Human studies of Aclidinium used "Aclidinium Bromide 200 µg". ClinicalTrials.gov · 2026-09-01
Aclidinium's half-life is 5 to 8 hours — which schedules were studied?
5 to 8 hours, the half-life Aclidinium's label states: "After dry powder inhalation, urinary excretion of aclidinium is about 0.09% of the dose and the estimated effective half-life is 5 to 8 hours." DailyMed label · 6f92cceb-a63f-4470-99b6-56179d98f10f · 2022-08-01
bioavailability 6 %.
Show the evidence
half lifepharmacokinetics
5 to 8 hours; After dry powder inhalation, urinary excretion of aclidinium is about 0.09% of the dose and the estimated effective half-life is 5 to 8 hours.
bioavailabilitypharmacokinetics
6 %; Absorption The absolute bioavailability of aclidinium bromide is approximately 6% in healthy volunteers.
metabolismpharmacokinetics
Metabolism Clinical pharmacokinetics studies, including a mass balance study, indicate that the major route of metabolism of aclidinium bromide is hydrolysis, which occurs both chemically and enzymatically by esterases.
recorded 2022-08-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q6
Which 8 trials of Aclidinium posted no result?
Posted no result
8 of 8 completed trials
Registrations
NCT00435760, NCT01636401, NCT02181023, NCT02039050, NCT03333018 and NCT03104634, and 2 more
Completion dates
oldest 2007-08; newest 2022-06-30
Show the evidence
Trial
NCT00435760
2007-08
NCT01636401
2013-05
NCT02181023
2014-10
NCT02039050
2015-07
NCT03333018
2017-02-28
NCT03104634
2019-02-01
2 further recorded trials
NCT02972476
2019-07-22
NCT03290287
2022-06-30
Q7
At the median, Aclidinium's trials enrolled 295.5 people — anything larger?
Median enrolment
295.5
Largest enrolment
26839
Registered trials counted
32
Q8
What do 65 spontaneous reports say about Aclidinium — and not say?
These are reports people sent to a regulator. They do not show the medicine caused the reaction. Nobody counted how many people took the medicine and reported nothing. The same event can be reported more than once, and many reports are incomplete. News coverage, lawsuits and new warnings change how often people report. A count is not a rate and not a risk.
Aclidinium appears in spontaneous reports to regulators. Across the 9 most-reported reaction terms, 65 reaction mentions were counted: dyspnoea 25; urinary retention 9; chest discomfort 8; atrial fibrillation 6. FAERS via Open Targets · CHEMBL1194325 · 2026-06-24
Show the evidence
dyspnoea
25
urinary retention
9
chest discomfort
8
atrial fibrillation
6
vision blurred
6
dry mouth
5
3 more recorded rows
bronchospasm paradoxical
3
bronchial carcinoma
2
acquired haemophilia with anti fviii, xi, or xiii
1
recorded 2026-06-24 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q9
Which 9 reactions does Aclidinium's label not list?
acquired haemophilia with anti fviii, xi, or xiii, atrial fibrillation and bronchial carcinoma and 6 more reported for Aclidinium, absent from its label. FAERS via Open Targets · CHEMBL1194325 · 2026-06-24
2 label terms; 9 reported and unlisted; 6f92cceb-a63f-4470-99b6-56179d98f10f
Show the evidence
acquired haemophilia with anti fviii, xi, or xiii
count not stated
atrial fibrillation
count not stated
bronchial carcinoma
count not stated
bronchospasm paradoxical
count not stated
chest discomfort
count not stated
dry mouth
count not stated
3 more recorded rows
dyspnoea
count not stated
urinary retention
count not stated
vision blurred
count not stated
recorded 2026-06-24 · last checked 2026-09-04
Where it is registeredIdentifiers, relations and other names
ChEMBL 37 — CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported · ClinicalTrials.gov — US Government work · Open Targets 26.06 — CC0 · mixed register set; per-register licences in docs/specs/corpus-20k-sources.md · openFDA / DailyMed — US Government work
✗ required summary fields resolved: 4 required field(s) not terminal: Why people use it, Best-supported result, Biggest unanswered question, Human evidence
✓ public claims reviewed: 0 reviewed claim(s); drafts are never rendered
✓ source coverage passed: 6 source rows
✓ no critical contamination: no quarantine open
✓ canonical metadata passed: slug and display name present
✓ no raw internal fields: enforced by the copy-contract test over the rendered page
This is a record of evidence. It is not medical advice, and it does not say this substance suits you. Nothing here says any substance on RNAWiki is appropriate for a child.